Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2435 (RAJ)

Mukesh Sharma v. Vipin Chand

2011-11-14

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal dissatisfied with award dated 27.06.2011 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MAC Case No.190/2011 (644/10), whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,58,100/- for permanent disability suffered by appellant at 5% taking his monthly income at Rs.15,000/-, whereas in fact the appellant suffered 6.14% permanent disability. 2. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that difference of awardable compensation for remaining 1.14% permanent disability under the head of loss of income would make a lot of difference. According to the structure formula, learned counsel for appellant argued that as per the income of the appellant i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 17, the total sum comes to Rs.30,60,000/- and 5% thereof, that has been awarded, comes to only Rs.1,53,000/-, whereas, if the permanent disability is taken as 6.14%, the awardable amount would come to Rs.1,87,884/- and there is no reason why 5% should be accepted as permanent disability when the evidence proves the accident and permanent disability to be 6.14%. It was argued that the appellant is admittedly a bank employee and the difference of ultimately awardable compensation is more than Rs.34,000/-, which is a handsome amount for middle class person like petitioner. It is therefore prayed that the awarded amount of compensation may be enhanced. 3. On hearing learned counsel for appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that learned Tribunal has mentioned that appellant, who is a bank employee, has not actually suffered any loss of income, yet learned Tribunal, relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Others – 2011 A.C.J. (1) 1 (SC), accepted permanent disability of 5% suffered by appellant and taking his age to be 27 years applied the multiplier of 17. In the facts of present case, in my opinion, learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any material irregularity in taking that view. Even if the appeal is entertained, that would make marginal difference which, however, I do not consider appropriate to be interfered with, as total award of Rs.1,58,100/- has been passed in favour of the appellant. The appellant has been awarded Rs.3000/- for three simple injuries, Rs.200/- for transportation, Rs.1000/- for mental agony, pain, suffering etc., Rs.1900/- for actual medical expenses and Rs.500/- for other expenses. I do not find any infirmity in the award. The appellant has been awarded Rs.3000/- for three simple injuries, Rs.200/- for transportation, Rs.1000/- for mental agony, pain, suffering etc., Rs.1900/- for actual medical expenses and Rs.500/- for other expenses. I do not find any infirmity in the award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.